- From: Drazen Kacar <Drazen.Kacar@public.srce.hr>
- Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 22:36:55 +0100 (MET)
- To: erik@netscape.com
- Cc: Chris.Lilley@sophia.inria.fr, Alan_Barrett/DUB/Lotus.LOTUSINT@crd.lotus.com, www-international@w3.org, bobj@netscape.com, wjs@netscape.com, Ed_Batutis/CAM/Lotus@crd.lotus.com
Erik van der Poel wrote: > > What I was trying to convey was that we had talked ourselves round to > > agreeing that Accept-Charset was essential otherwise how does the server > > know what to send? > > Well, I see your point. I will neither agree nor disagree at this point. > We are currently discussing Accept-Charset here at Netscape. Some of our > team members are also reading this email. Hopefully, some of them will > respond. > > In response to other mail on this list, I am completely unconvinced that > UI is needed for Accept-Charset. I am also concerned about "q". For > Unicode, it might mean giving a low "q" since most environments cannot > support *all* of Unicode. Also, the bit mask idea was just that: an > idea. I'm not religiously bound to it. It might not be needed for NSN, but I am not knowledgeable enough about all platforms you support. If you can't be 100% sure about code pages you should leave a way for user to define this. Environment variable on Unix is good enough. Or something to put in .Xdefaults. As for q value... Xterm can switch fonts, but there can only be one at a time (unless you use very dirty tricks which will disable something else). For a browser running on xterm with accessable fonts in several code pages, it would be quite desirable to send low q value for UTF-8, and leave it out (defaults to 1.0) for all other listed code pages. -- Life is a sexually transmitted disease. dave@fly.cc.fer.hr dave@zemris.fer.hr
Received on Thursday, 5 December 1996 16:38:03 UTC